From editor@telecom-digest.org Sun Nov 14 16:46:37 2004 Received: (from ptownson@localhost) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (8.11.6p3/8.11.6) id iAELkbA19894; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:46:37 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:46:37 -0500 (EST) From: editor@telecom-digest.org Message-Id: <200411142146.iAELkbA19894@massis.lcs.mit.edu> X-Authentication-Warning: massis.lcs.mit.edu: ptownson set sender to editor@telecom-digest.org using -f To: ptownson Approved: patsnewlist Subject: TELECOM Digest V23 #546 TELECOM Digest Sun, 14 Nov 2004 16:45:00 EST Volume 23 : Issue 546 Inside This Issue: Editor: Patrick A. Townson Has TiVo Forsaken Us? (Monty Solomon) Spoofing Caller Party With Custom Equipment (rsn) Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem (DevilsPGD) Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem (Tony P.) Re: Cable Internet, was: Internet Without Landline? (w_tom) Re: Chechen Rebel Web Site Reopened (Henry) Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cell (Wesrock) Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders (Bob Smythe) Re: Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! Judy Sammels's Story (Tony P.) Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits (Lisa Hancock) Last Laugh! Pure Spam/Phishing! MY PRESENTATION TO YOU (HENRY CASTLE) All contents here are copyrighted by Patrick Townson and the individual writers/correspondents. Articles may be used in other journals or newsgroups, provided the writer's name and the Digest are included in the fair use quote. By using -any name or email address- included herein for -any- reason other than responding to an article herein, you agree to pay a hundred dollars to the recipients of the email. =========================== Addresses herein are not to be added to any mailing list, nor to be sold or given away without explicit written consent. Chain letters, viruses, porn, spam, and miscellaneous junk are definitely unwelcome. We must fight spam for the same reason we fight crime: not because we are naive enough to believe that we will ever stamp it out, but because we do not want the kind of world that results when no one stands against crime. Geoffrey Welsh =========================== See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details and the name of our lawyer; other stuff of interest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 14:49:02 -0500 From: Monty Solomon Subject: Has TiVo Forsaken Us? Excerpt from From: Seth David Schoen Date: November 14, 2004 12:21:08 PM EST Subject: Re: [IP] Has TiVo Forsaken Us? Until about a year ago there was a nice bright-line rule between unencrypted stuff like free-to-air broadcasting and basic-tier cable: open standards and no license required to receive them, therefore no legal restrictions on what you can do with them. (You are still bound by copyright law, but the legal default for unencrypted signals has been that technology is not required to enforce anyone's notion of copyright.) ------------------------------ From: techbaath@yahoo.com (rsn) Subject: Spoofing Caller Party With Custom Equipment Date: 14 Nov 2004 06:15:03 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Hello, I am wondering what prevents someone from spoofing the phone number? If we built a modified GSM modem +SIM type capability that took the phone number and MSIDN and any other relevant ids as input would'nt you be able to call/SMS on someone else's id? (Assume for the moment that their phone is switched off and hence there is no conflict on the network). There is probably some defence built into the system, just wanted to know how this works. Thanks, tb ------------------------------ From: DevilsPGD Subject: Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:52:41 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com In message Tony P. wrote: > I found either dialing 1+NPA+NXX+XXXX completes calls in < 2 seconds > while dialing NXX-XXXX takes 5 to 6 seconds -- they're waiting to time > out in that case. Try dialing NPA+NXX+XXXX and it will connect the call immediately. > Overall the receive audio quality is mostly superb (I do notice a > slight background noise that reminds me of the old microwave > transmissions systems for LD calls.) and outgoing audio reminds most > people of a cell phone less the gaps. I can live with that. Last I heard Vonage is artificially adding background noise. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On your Vonage seven digit dialing try > adding a carriage return ('#') at the end of your dialing string to > speed things up somewhat. In other words, NXX-XXXX# should work a bit > faster. PAT] That doesn't (and has never) worked here. 1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill of watching paint dry. ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Update: Vonage Ring Problem Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:14:56 -0500 In article , kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net says: > In article , > kd1s@nospamplease.cox.reallynospam.net says: >> It appears the problem is solved. >> I looked at Linksys's datasheet for the RT31P2 router and found you >> could vary the ring voltage and frequency (60 to 90 vrms at 10 to 40Hz). >> But Vonage locks that on the router. >> Finally got a former switch tech when I called support who understood >> what I was telling him in that the router is supposed to support 5REN on >> the jack on the router. >> I told him to crank the voltage to 90 vrms and sure enough -- the >> Trimline, Princess and Celebrity all ring when they're plugged in >> together. >> He mentioned 90 vrms stressing the unit. I told him that if the unit >> was stressed by 90 vrms which is telecom industry standard for ring >> voltage, and further that the specs for the unit indicate it is >> capable of, then the problem lay with their choice of router not the >> settings. >> So all is functional now. All I have left to do is the dial pulse to >> DTMF converter so my Imperial and 302 can connect and I'll be all set. >> Tony >> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I assume the tech had to unlock your >> TA at his end while you were speaking and make that change to 90 vms. >> And as far as their choice of router goes, I am not hearing very >> good things about the Linksys device. I do not know what Vonage was >> hung about with the Motorola TA; it has mostly worked fine for me, >> although a couple people with super sensitive ears still complain to >> me that I 'drop out' on occassion when talking to them. I just tell >> them to put new batteries in their hearing aids. PAT] > The unit appears to be working well now. I have noted some peculiarities > though. > I found either dialing 1+NPA+NXX+XXXX completes calls in < 2 seconds > while dialing NXX-XXXX takes 5 to 6 seconds -- they're waiting to time > out in that case. > I also note that in some instances ringback will continue even > though supervision has started. > Click to Dial works great. I just wish it would save phone numbers but > it doesn't appear to be doing so. > Overall the receive audio quality is mostly superb (I do notice a > slight background noise that reminds me of the old microwave > transmissions systems for LD calls.) and outgoing audio reminds most > people of a cell phone less the gaps. I can live with that. > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: On your Vonage seven digit dialing try > adding a carriage return ('#') at the end of your dialing string to > speed things up somewhat. In other words, NXX-XXXX# should work a bit > faster. PAT] Ah yes, I should have mentioned that I tried the terminator also. That also gives a < 2 second connection time. It's funny how spoiled you get by the incumbent carrier though. Punch a 7 digit number with no terminator and the call connects immediately. Probably because they've got all sorts of ARS and routing tables set up to handle it. Kind of hard to do on a little Linksys router. I do know how Vonage put its network of sorts together though. They're just using excess capacity on all these IP aware switches throughout the country. For example, mine appears to route through Paetec's switch in Providence. That is probably what upsets the ILEC's the most -- that someone else figured out how to use excess CLEC capacity to their own benefit. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I think the difference is the telco says the default condition is seven digits, with eleven now and then providing the first digit is '1', or occassionally three digits of the form N11. Vonage on the other hand says the rule is eleven digits always beginning with '1' and occassional exceptions being seven digits. Note how with telco you can do '0#' (zero pound) and cut through to an operator immediatly. Ever since telco started allowing things like 011+, and 01+ they have to time out the operator as well. Just a straight and solo '0' lets you sit there for six or seven seconds before it times out also as a result. A terminator or carriage return (#) always tells telco (and usually Vonage) 'that is all you are going to get, so act on it'. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:20:11 -0500 From: w_tom Subject: Re: Cable Internet, was: Internet Without Landline? Broadband technology has been long available. Any company that does not understand what is required of internet providers is demonstrating why business school principles so often create business failures. For example, DSL was demonstrated first by British Telephone in 1981. Broadband technology is that old. Because local providers (the last mile) were stifling internet growth, then the 1996 Federal Communication Act forced even those 'we fear to pioneer new technology' companies (baby Bells and cable companies) to let others provide that service. Basic principles of broadband have been around so long that only the naive would not understand what services were available and are necessary. Example: broadband service for internet client access is not same as service necessary for server access. The former (clients) use an upload bandwidth much slower than download speeds. The latter (servers) require equal or higher upload data transfer speeds. Anyone with first year (basic) networking knowledge would say, "But of course. This has long been understood." However business school graduates are taught a good manager can manage any business. Its a 56K modem. Therefore it can do 56K in both directions? According to 'business school' mentalities, these details are too messy, technical, and unnecessary. Therefore even this paragraph confuses bosses who are the reason for internet service mistakes. You are right to blame some businesses for making unnecessary internet service mistakes. But that mistake is not due to a new technology. Broadband is over 20 years old. Unfortunately too many think they are decision makers only because they have a business degree - rather than first learn from those who make things actually work. The problem is not that broadband is a new service. The problem is directly traceable to company management that foolishly practice what business schools teach: a good manager can manage any business. Danny Burstein wrote: > In bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com > (Robert Bonomi) writes: > [ lots snipped ] >> 4) Some people need higher _uplink_ throughput, and/or more >> 'predictable' download speeds, even when a lot of their neighbors >> are "on-line". > In many (certainly, most certainly, not all) areas, you can, indeed, > purchase higher levels of speed and/or quality of service/reliability > levels from the local cableco. At a higher price, of course. > The big complaints come from people/businesses who sign up for a > standard (residential) service level and are shocked, shocked, they > don't get everything they wished for. > Personally I'm not at all comfortable with many of these distinctions, > but the entire high speed (dsl/cable) internet concept is only a few > years old. There's going to be a lot more shakeup, both pricing and > speedwise, (and in technology) in the near future. ------------------------------ From: henry999@eircom.net (Henry) Subject: Re: Chechen Rebel Web Site Reopened Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:31:15 +0200 Organization: Elisa Internet customer Lisa Minter wrote: > HELSINKI (Reuters) - A Web site used by a Chechen warlord to claim > responsibility for September's school siege in Russia has reopened, > one month after it was closed by the Finnish company that hosted it. > Finnish news agency STT reported Saturday that the site, > www.kavkavcenter.com, was now hosted on a Swedish server with a backup > in Finland. Well, on Sunday at 10.13 gmt I got "The specified server could not be found." Cheers, Henry ------------------------------ From: Wesrock@aol.com Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:58:24 EST Subject: Re: Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular Marek Tomczyk wrote about Access of Calling Card Dial in Number From Prepaid Cellular on Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:43:32 +0100: > I'm posting this for a friend (Juergen). Find his contact address at > the bottom of this post. Thanks. > Marek > =========== [ ... ] > So I have decided now to get an American mobile phone on my next > trip to the USA. > I like the offer of AT&T Wireless very much as it provides a long > validity of one year for balances starting at $100. Domestic calling > with the Free2Go service is very reasonable priced, but calling > foreign countries is still expensive. > So the idea is to use a calling card service for this matter. The > AT&T documents say that prepaid calling card service is not > possible with Free2Go. Besides this AT&T says in its terms that > certain numbers can be blocked if "abuse" to the network happens. > Is calling a local dial in number from a mobile phone in America, in > particular from a free2Go phone, abusive usage of the network? > Do you know if calling of local (regular) dial in number from American, > in particular prepaid aka "pay as you go" services is possible? > Can such providers block access to those numbers? > Unfortunately I could not find definitive information about this issue > on the web. > Thanks, > Juergen-Usenet@web.de Dialing a local number from a cellular phone is probably the most common usage of a wireless phone in the U.S.A. It's not at all clear why is would even be thought to be abusive. Wes Leatherock wesrock@aol.com wleathus@yahoo.com ------------------------------ From: billyzane1@excite.com (Bob Smythe) Subject: Re: Movie Studios to Sue Internet File Traders Date: 14 Nov 2004 07:40:03 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com The thing is, it is illegal to download or upload copyrighted works, the concept of file sharing and actual file sharing is not illegal. I do not condone illegal file sharing, but am just trying to clarify a few things. The MPAA (and RIAA) have not and will not target individual downloaders. There is no real way to get them. They are not a law enforcement agency. They cannot entrap individual users. If you download from them, and they are the rightful owners, then there is no law broken, even if it is widely know that the service being used is to illegally obtain files. Plus having downloaded one file will not be worthwhile anyway in court. They will focus and be able to bust those who share (uploaders) works they do not own. These are the people who are illegally distributing, offering, sharing and causing the industry the most harm, and potentially profiting from this type of activity. Bottom line is if you do not share, then you run little to no risk of being caught. But people need to realize the impact reaches far beyond whether or not they get caught. They are hurting our economy. A great number of jobs and resources goes into creating movies and songs, and you are stealing money out of their pockets and retailers, etc.. For me, I do not like the threat of viruses and poor sound and picture quality. That is why I stay away from such activity. That is the greater threat. The fact that it is also illegal makes it even less appealing. Just buy the damn videos y'all. The industry will benefit by offering an I-Tunes type service for those who want to get movies via downloading for an affordable price. Say -8 bucks for a movie. YOu have to go by the hardware and software to burn it and the dual layered DVD's are like 4 bucks a pop I think. BOB Lisa Minter wrote in message news:: > LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Taking a cue from the music industry, film > studios and the Motion Picture Association of America said on Thursday > that they were readying the first lawsuits against people suspected of > illegally distributing movies over the Internet. > The civil suits will seek to stop trading and damages of up > to $30,000 per film, the MPAA said, adding that damages could > reach $150,000 if the infringement was deemed willful. > Record companies have led the way with such lawsuits, targeting major > traders of song files who use Kazaa and other programs to swap songs > on the Web. The movie trade group, representing Hollywood's major > studios, plans to launch its own legal challenges beginning Nov. 16. > Studios have been slow to release DVD-quality films on the Internet > because of the twin piracy and technological shortcomings -- it takes > hours to download even a film at lower quality levels, while it takes > minutes or seconds to download a song. Improving technology is cutting > the gap, though. > "That distinction is rapidly vanishing, so we are taking these actions > to try and prevent this illegal activity from becoming mainstream," > the MPAA said in a statement, adding that future technologies could > allow movie downloads in as few as six seconds. > MPAA President and Chief Executive Dan Glickman said at a news > conference that the music industry has had an impact on music piracy > with its lawsuits. > That campaign has had a mixed reception from consumers and some in the > industry, who have urged movie and music makers to develop easy-to-use > technology for buying or renting content that would be a viable > alternative to illegal downloads. > Apple Computer Inc's iTunes is often heralded as an example of legal > song buying that works. > "The industry should be thinking of new ways to deploy the new > technology rather than suing the consumer," said Mediaport > Entertainment Inc. Chief Executive Helen Seltzer, which makes kiosks, > or automatic teller machines, to buy and download music. "We find that > if students are given an easy way to download, they will do it and pay > for it happily," she said. > An MPAA attorney said studios would launch fewer lawsuits than the > record industry, which has pursued more than 5,000 people to > date. Studios would also use "John Doe" lawsuits that allow them to > pursue file traders without knowing the traders' identities. > Chris Ruhland, a former studio lawyer now at Orrick Herrington & > Sutcliffe, forecast the movie makers would win their days in > court. "The law is very clear that unauthorized distribution of > copyrighted material is illegal," he said. > Reuters/VNU [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What MPAA and RIAA do not understand (or pretend not to understand) is the purposes for which the net was developed: It was developed for the sharing of ideas and files, at no charge between the participants. What MPAA/RIAA seem to want is the ability to put out their goods all over the public sidewalk, but they do not feel people should be free to to examine same goods at their leisure without paying for them. The net was around for a long time before MPAA/RIAA came around wanting to put their trash out on the public roadway, and they wanted to change the rules the minute they got here from a place of free expression to a place where you have to pay to view their stuff. There are plenty of ways to mark directories (on computers) to keep people out of them who have not paid. But it seems to be more to their advantage to use the net as an advertising media then file suit against people who stop to look (too long, and too extensively) rather than just move along. I do not really have any sympathy for those relative newcomers to the net. PAT] ------------------------------ From: Tony P. Subject: Re: Use Comcast Cable Modem? Go to Jail! Judy Sammels's Experience Organization: ATCC Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 12:48:09 -0500 In article , ptownson@telecom- digest.org says: > The other day here we were discussing the general incompetence of so > many folks working in customer service/tech support functions for the > cable companies. > Someone wrote to say with cable modem (which I happen to have very > good experience with) was not always a wonderful way to go. This > reminded me of the experience of a lady named Judy Sammel, who wrote > an essay which appeared in various sources during 1999-2000 about > what happened to her, as a user of Comcast. We put it in the archives > here, but have not used it since. You can read it as a feature story > in the archives now (since the archives was remodeled a couple weeks > ago) but here today is a text based version of her fascinating story; > how she was falsely accused of 'fraud and theft of cable service'. If > you are considering Comcast for your cable modem/high speed internet > service, you will want to read this account. > PAT > ============================== > Chapter 1: In Which I Learn About the Various Divisions of the District > Court of the State of Maryland. > charges will be dropped. I mention that the video trap wasn't > installed the previous day. This was back when @home was actually excite@home. They had agreements with all the cable companies including Comcast, Cox etc. to allow pure data hookups. The fact that most pedestals for cable service are locked means that somewhere in Comcasts maintenance records they have a record indicating that the service was to be hooked up and a filter installed. She should have proceeded with the civil case and opened the underbelly of incompetence at our cable companies. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well she should have, and I would have. But if you read the entire story on her web site or on our web site http://telecom-digest.org you'll note she says she is 'not inclined to sue people or companies'. I would have made an example of Comcast for sure, if they had been that arrogant and stupid (and don't those two characteristics often times go hand in hand?) with me. But, Ms. Sammel had to do what she felt was best, although as you read her testimony about Comcast you could see where there were times she was really about to do a number on them. The whole story was much larger and longer, and greatly truncated (like a Reader's Digest Condensed Book) to fit the limitations of this text based digest. PAT] ------------------------------ From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa Hancock) Subject: Re: What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers' Habits Date: 14 Nov 2004 09:52:42 -0800 Monty Solomon wrote > The experts mined the data and found that the stores would indeed need > certain products -- and not just the usual flashlights. "We didn't know > in the past that strawberry Pop-Tarts increase in sales, like seven > times their normal sales rate, ahead of a hurricane," Ms. Dillman > said in a recent interview. "And the pre-hurricane top-selling item > was beer." WalMart is huge and now many people don't like them. There have been several documentaries on them (PBS' Frontline will have another this week, check your local listings). Critics say Walmart destroys Main Street and American jobs. Yes, it does. But on the other hand, aren't the customers of Walmart benefiting from lower prices? I like patronizing local businesses and try to do so. But when my local hardware store charges $5 for a flashlight and Walmart charges $1.50 for the very same model, I do have to stop and think. I realized my local hardware store was grossly overcharging for many things. (They're out of business now). A few towns still have nice Main Streets, though many places they're pretty awful. But most of these were killed off long before Walmart came around, the more traditional shopping centers and chain stores did them in a long time ago. Some people may be upset that Walmart has such detailed customer buying habits as described above. But it enabled them to serve their customers with things they needed and wanted in an emergency. [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: No, their prices are not necessarily lower. Prices are only lower in areas (of the merchandise) they want to push one week. At our downtown grocery store, Marvin's, the selection is always just as good, and the prices are nearly always at least competitive (if not sometimes better) than Walmart. Plus which, I *hate* large crowds in a mall-type setting, and not getting the customer service, carry out to your car arrangements that Marvins and the stores downtown offer. PAT] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:45:22 -0600 Subject: Last Laugh! Purely Spam! MY PRESENTATION TO YOU From: HENRY CASTLE [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Of the 126 times in the past two days I have been selected by some bogus Solicitor in Nigeria somewhere to serve as the executor of some poor deceased devils estate (always numbering in the millions-billions of dollars) I have never once answered them. I am wondering what would happen if I did. I've had many folks say these charlatans would try to pick me clean, getting my bank deposit account numbers, my social security number, etc. And some have suggested they (the charlatans) would send you a bogus draft for several thousand million billion dollars to be deposited in my bank account, which, surprise!, would turn out to be counterfiet after I had endorsed/negotiated it and remitted proceeds back to the Solicitor, etc. Has anyone on the net ever played their game back at them? That is to say, responded saying "I am so sorry to hear of my long lost relative being deceased, how can I help you?" then milked them and toyed with them as long as they kept playing back? I wonder what they would say/do then? Let's say, a few typographical errors in your social security number, your bank and credit card numbers, etc. Or maybe a *l o n g* time before you remitted proceeds back to them less the matter of your fees, of course. Naturally you do not withdraw five cents of the 'money order' or 'bank draft' they use to pay you with until *it* has cleared, in the unlikely event it ever does. I would suggest you give it to your bank and ask *them* to clear it first before they issue any credit to you. Above all, do not sign or endorse it in any way. See if you can get any good, legitimate email or street addresses for these fools before you get them on the run, of course. So -- if there are any Sires or Madams in our audience today who feel like playing along and milking Henry Castle, Solicitor at Law for whatever he may be worth, have at it. Here is his Crock for your examination and purusal. PAT] --------------------------------------- From sb0-07369716fd-nobody@rose-chi.propagation.net Sun Nov 14 03:01:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ptownson@massis.lcs.mit.edu Received: from xuxa.iecc.com (xuxa.iecc.com [208.31.42.42]) by massis.lcs.mit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CC115398 for ; Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:01:38 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 18469 invoked by uid 166); 14 Nov 2004 08:01:37 -0000 Delivered-To: virtual-telecom-editor@telecom-digest.org Received: (qmail 18467 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2004 08:01:37 -0000 Received: from 1-1-13-69.cust.propagation.net (HELO rose-chi.propagation.net) (69.13.1.1) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2004 08:01:37 -0000 Received: (from nobody@localhost) by rose-chi.propagation.net (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id iADBjMg29273; Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:45:22 -0600 Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 05:45:22 -0600 Message-Id: <200411131145.iADBjMg29273@rose-chi.propagation.net> To: Subject: MY PRESENTATION TO YOU From: HENRY CASTLE X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Cc: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: RLSP Mailer X-DCC-IECC-Metrics: xuxa.iecc.com 1107; bulk Body=79 Fuz1=many Fuz2=many X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on massis.lcs.mit.edu X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_12_24, DEAR_SOMETHING,NIGERIAN_BODY1 autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: * Status: RO Dear Sir/Madam, FOR YOUR ATTENTION I am barrister Henry Castle a solicitor at law. I am the personal attorney to Mr. Mark Webb, a national of your country, who until his death was an employee with Chevron Oil Exploration Company in Nigeria. Here in after shall be referred to as my client. On the 21st of April 1999, my client, his wife and their three Children were involved in a car accident along Sagbama express-road. All occupants of the vehicle unfortunately lost their lives. Since then I have made several enquiries to your embassy to locate any of my clients extended relatives, this has also proved unsuccessful. After these several unsuccessful attempts, I have contacted you to assist in repatriating the money and property left behind by my client before they get confiscated or declared unserviceable by the bank here where the huge deposits were lodged. Particularly, Commercial Bank of Africa where the deceased had an account valued at over $7million dollars has issued me a notice to provide the next of kin or have the account confiscated within 14 official working days. Since I have been unsuccessful in locating their relatives for over 3 years now I seek your consent to present you as the next of kin of the deceased, so that the proceeds of this account valued at over $7million dollars can be officially and promptly paid to you and then you and me can share the money. The ratio of sharing shall be 45% to you and 50% to me, while remaining 5% will take care of incidental expenses which shall be incurred in the cause of this transaction. I have all necessary legal documents that can be used to back up any claim we may to stand make. All I require is your honest cooperation to enable us seeing this deal through. I guarantee that this will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law. For confidential reasons contact me via my alternate email address: henrycastle@tiscali.cz Best regards, Henry Castle Esq. ___________________________________________________________________________ Mail sent from WebMail service at ladiesteaparty.com (a PHP-Nuke Powered Site) -Visit us at http://www.ladiesteaparty.com ------------------------------ TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly but not exclusively to telecommunications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to various telecom forums on a variety of networks such as Compuserve and America On Line, Yahoo Groups, and other forums. It is also gatewayed to Usenet where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'. TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit, mostly non-commercial educational service offered to the Internet by Patrick Townson. All the contents of the Digest are compilation-copyrighted. You may reprint articles in some other media on an occasional basis, but please attribute my work and that of the original author. Contact information: Patrick Townson/TELECOM Digest Post Office Box 50 Independence, KS 67301 Phone: 620-402-0134 Fax 1: 775-255-9970 Fax 2: 530-309-7234 Fax 3: 208-692-5145 Email: editor@telecom-digest.org Subscribe: telecom-subscribe@telecom-digest.org Unsubscribe:telecom-unsubscribe@telecom-digest.org This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Anonymous FTP: mirror.lcs.mit.edu/telecom-archives/archives/ (or use our mirror site: ftp.epix.net/pub/telecom-archives) Email <==> FTP: telecom-archives@telecom-digest.org Send a simple, one line note to that automated address for a help file on how to use the automatic retrieval system for archives files. You can get desired files in email. ************************************************************************* * TELECOM Digest is partially funded by a grant from * * Judith Oppenheimer, President of ICB Inc. and purveyor of accurate * * 800 & Dot Com News, Intelligence, Analysis, and Consulting. * * http://ICBTollFree.com, http://1800TheExpert.com * * Views expressed herein should not be construed as representing * * views of Judith Oppenheimer or ICB Inc. * ************************************************************************* ICB Toll Free News. Contact information is not sold, rented or leased. One click a day feeds a person a meal. Go to http://www.thehungersite.com Copyright 2004 ICB, Inc. and TELECOM Digest. All rights reserved. Our attorney is Bill Levant, of Blue Bell, PA. ************************ DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE JUST 65 CENTS ONE OR TWO INQUIRIES CHARGED TO YOUR CREDIT CARD! REAL TIME, UP TO DATE! SPONSORED BY TELECOM DIGEST AND EASY411.COM SIGN UP AT http://www.easy411.com/telecomdigest ! ************************ --------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself who provide funding in amounts deemed appropriate. Your help is important and appreciated. A suggested donation of fifty dollars per year per reader is considered appropriate. See our address above. Please make at least a single donation to cover the cost of processing your name to the mailing list. All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization. End of TELECOM Digest V23 #546 ******************************